Patient outcomes, open access: Ginny Barbour sets MJA agenda | InSight+

“There’s no doubt for me that we are moving along a trajectory where open access is absolutely going to be the outcome. The question is just how we get there and how quickly we get there.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the Office of Science and Technology Policy from the United States White House put out an edict that all federally funded research in the US must be made open access by 2026. In Australia already, we have a number of moves that are going in that direction.

We know that our Chief Scientist Dr Cathy Foley is looking at that closely, and the [National Health and Medical Research Council] and the [Australian Research Council] have open access policies.

I think it’s fair to say that this is a topic of great interest and Australia probably needs to move a little bit quicker.

“For the MJA [Medical Journal of Australia], there’s no question that we want open access. We want that research to be read; it needs to be used and reused, not just by practitioners but by patients. Open access can only be a good thing for the Journal.”

Everything Hertz: 161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)

“Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science….”

Fifteen Questions: Marc Lipsitch on Covid Modeling, Open-Access Science, and Latte Art

“I’ve been arguing for open-access and favoring open-access journals for my own work — not exclusively, but a lot. I’ve been working as an editor and reviewer on open-access journals. That’s the wave of the future. It’s outrageous that publicly funded research is paywalled. Most journals add almost no value to the papers they publish. “Epidemiology,” one of the major journals in our field, really edits it carefully and improves the paper beyond the peer review. But there are other ways to pay for that. It’s long overdue….”

From Mattering Press to the Open Book Collective: Interview with Joe Deville | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

Corazza, F., & Fathallah, J. (2022). From Mattering Press to the Open Book Collective: Interview with Joe Deville. Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.ffebd406

As well as being the Chair of the Open Book Collective, due to launch soon, Joe Deville is one of the founders of Mattering Press, a small Open Access book publisher. We sat down with Joe to speak to him about how he became involved in Open Access publishing, some of the challenges that small publishers can face when starting up, and how his work with Mattering Press led to his involvement in the Open Book Collective.

 

Dr. h.c. Johan Rooryck – an in-depth interview | Open Science Talk

Abstract:  On 1 September 2022, professor of linguistics and director of cOAlition S Johan Rooryck was created a doctor honoris causa at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. In this in-depth interview, Rooryck reflects on his career so far and shares his vision of a future where scholar-led, fair and equitable open access prevails over commercial publishing structures.

Johan Rooryck starts out by explaining how he became the editor-in-chief of the high-ranking journal Lingua in 1999, how his relations with the publisher Elsevier became increasingly strained, and how he succeeded in bringing all his co-editors along in a sensational break with Elsevier. Instead, they launched the fully open access journal Glossa (now a high-ranking journal of general linguistics) at the platform Open Library of Humanities, in 2015. Rooryck in particular dwells on the non-commercial model known as Diamond Open Access, with no charges facing either readers or authors. Speaking on behalf of Plan S and the cOAlition S, whose executive director he became in 2019, Rooryck also broadens the view to all forms of open access, including open access to books and research data. At the end, he looks ahead to the future, when faced with the final, fundamental question: are you an optimist?

Will New White House Open Access Rules Impact Researchers? | The Brink | Boston University

“To find out what the impact might be—including on Boston University and its researchers, many of whom receive funding from the federal government—The Brink spoke with Mark Newton, University librarian ad interim. An advocate for open access to research, he’s also a former journal editor, previously helping lead the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. …”

Communities, Commoning, Open Access and the Humanities: An Interview with Martin Eve – ScienceOpen

Abstract:  Leading open access publishing advocate and pioneer Professor Martin Paul Eve considers several topics in an interview with WPCC special issue editor Andrew Lockett. These include the merits of considering publishing in the context of commons theory and communing, digital platforms as creative and homogenous spaces, cosmolocalism, the work of intermediaries or boundary organisations and the differing needs of library communities. Eve is also asked to reflect on research culture, the academic prestige economy, the challenges facing the humanities, digital models in trade literature markets and current influences in terms of work in scholarly communications and recent academic literature. Central concerns that arise in the discussion are the importance of values and value for money in an environment shaped by increasing demands for policies determined by crude data monitoring that are less than fully thought through in terms of their impact and their implications for academics and their careers.

 

Taxpayer-Funded Science Is Finally Becoming Public

“It has been possible to see a lot of the work after a one-year embargo. The National Institutes of Health, the NIH, established over 20 years ago a public digital archive called PubMed Central, which has the full text of articles submitted to it by its grantees. But that archive was not nearly as useful as it might have been because of reluctance of journals to allow that to happen to articles on which they own the copyright, because investigators have been compliant with the desires of their favorite journals, and for many other reasons, until Congress said to the NIH well over a decade ago, you must get this material into a public database at least within a year after publication. That happened, and now PubMed Central has millions of articles widely used every day by every investigator. But it’s imperiled by not having adequate access to results when they’re published….

In the article, we’ve emphasized the major thing, which is the elimination of an embargo. But the article, the memo, does have many other things in it that are particularly appealing. It requires that a detailed plan be made, not just for displaying published articles but also for making the materials useful in machine-based learning exercises so that the format is compatible with extracting as much information as possible….

There’s no doubt in the minds of almost everybody that the rapid development of the RNA genome of the coronavirus was essential for, first of all, identifying what the agent of COVID-19 was, but then also in developing the vaccines that have been so important in trying to control this pandemic and developing various kinds of tests that allow us to detect the emergence of the variants that have plagued efforts to do public health control of the virus. So I think there are many ways in which it’s obvious that sharing data at the very, very earliest stages through sequence databases and the speed of communication has been remarkable and, of course, helped by the fact that many of our leading periodicals have followed this so closely and so well….

 So this is important. And one of the things that some people accuse advocates like me of neglecting is the fact that there are real costs for publication. Nobody’s saying that publication is free. It’s just, we’re trying to promote access. But someone’s got to pay the costs of doing peer review. The costs are much less than they might otherwise be because the authors and the reviewers don’t get paid. Nevertheless, there are costs. And how do they get covered?

Well, the costs should be borne and are largely borne by the funders of research. And if you view the publication process as an element of the research experience, which it certainly is, it’s a very small element– as I mentioned, just a couple of percent– and, of course, essential if you’re going to make use of the work that gets done with the money. So in general, it’s the funders who pay….”

An interview with Delia Mihaila of MDPI – DOAJ News Service

“In 2022, MDPI is supporting DOAJ at the Sustaining Level, a contribution made at a level that recognises the need to properly support open access infrastructure. We last caught up with MDPI in 2018 and a lot has changed. We sent Delia some questions about what’s moving in the MDPI world….”

Reflections on a decade using Scholastica at GEP: Interview with Susan Altman

“Since 2000, MIT Press’ Global Environmental Politics journal has been publishing novel research examining the relationships between worldwide political forces and environmental change. In the early days of the journal, GEP’s founding editorial team managed its peer review process via a combination of email and spreadsheets. However, as the publication grew, they realized they needed dedicated software for submission tracking and manuscript management.

In 2013, the journal’s Managing Editor, Susan Altman, began working with Scholastica’s peer review system, which was selected by MIT Press because it offered a centralized place for tracking submissions and communicating with editors, authors, and reviewers. In the interview below, Altman reflects on GEP’s experience moving to Scholastica for peer review management, the editorial team’s experience working with Scholastica over the past decade, and the journal’s evolution up to this point….”

Reflections on a decade using Scholastica at GEP: Interview with Susan Altman

“Since 2000, MIT Press’ Global Environmental Politics journal has been publishing novel research examining the relationships between worldwide political forces and environmental change. In the early days of the journal, GEP’s founding editorial team managed its peer review process via a combination of email and spreadsheets. However, as the publication grew, they realized they needed dedicated software for submission tracking and manuscript management.

In 2013, the journal’s Managing Editor, Susan Altman, began working with Scholastica’s peer review system, which was selected by MIT Press because it offered a centralized place for tracking submissions and communicating with editors, authors, and reviewers. In the interview below, Altman reflects on GEP’s experience moving to Scholastica for peer review management, the editorial team’s experience working with Scholastica over the past decade, and the journal’s evolution up to this point….”

James Love: The Copyright Ratchet, International Treaties & Fighting for Access

“James ‘Jamie’ Love is Director of Knowledge Ecology International. His training is in economics and finance, and work focuses on the production, management and access to knowledge resources, as well as aspects of competition policy. The current focus is on the financing of research and development, intellectual property rights, prices for and access to new drugs, vaccines and other medical technologies, as well as related topics for other knowledge goods, including data, software, other information protected by copyright or related rights, and proposals to expand the production of knowledge as a public good. James advises UN agencies, national governments, international and regional intergovernmental organisations and public health NGOs, and is the author of a number of articles and monographs on innovation and intellectual property rights.

He talks about access to information being one of the emerging issues of his generation, and how he got wrapped-up in the idea of making access to information more equal and less expensive for everyone. James recalls the failed push for a database Treaty at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the EU’s stubbornness by adopting the Database Directive, and how this, and term extensions, are textbook examples of the ‘copyright ratchet.’ He highlights the dangers of things creeping into international trade agreements, which can tie up politicians’ hands to change course. James touches on the WTO debates on vaccines in relation to the pandemic. He shares first-hand insights on the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty on access to published works for blind and visually impaired persons, including the many attempts to push back against it. James warns of the continuous push for a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, and the pressure exerted by rights holders on policymakers. Finally, he concludes by observing how the lengthy negotiations on a Broadcasting Treaty, now ongoing for 25 years, has worn out the opposition against it, as priorities shift to other things….”

How open source is supporting NASA’s new eyes in space | The GitHub Blog

” “Any rich nation can build a space telescope, but only a great nation gives its information away to the world to be used for the common heritage and betterment of mankind.” – Barbara Mikulski, former Maryland State Senator

Open source is the backbone of some of the greatest human achievements in technology. There’s a quiet power to open source communities and the contributors that power them. A developer never really truly knows how the code they are building will impact the broader technology ecosystem, but they know it’s likely to positively impact someone, somewhere. This ethos of sharing and contributing and never expecting a pat on the back is what makes open source and its contributors special, and is why it’s all the more exciting when a developer learns that that one contribution they made on a regular weekend has impacted something like flying a helicopter on Mars.

Just last month, we saw the long-awaited liftoff of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). We wanted to take a moment to celebrate NASA’s achievement and all the agencies involved, but also to take a step back and reflect on how open source has gradually become a key partner to scientists and astronomers alike….”

The End of Journal Impact Factor Purgatory (and Numbers to the Thousandths) – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Clarivate Analytics announced today that they are granting all journals in the Web of Science Core Collection an Impact Factor with the 2023 release….

In 2015, Clarivate launched the ESCI. It was initially described as an index of journals that are up-and-coming — meaning new journals, or established journals in niche areas that are growing in impact. At the time of launch, publishers were told that a journal selected for ESCI will likely get an Impact Factor within a few years.

The model for ESCI seemed to shift a few years later and there are many journals in ESCI that have been there since 2015 that still don’t have Impact Factors. In fact, Clarivate includes content for indexed journals back to 2005 so there clearly were journals older than 10 years in the database when it launched.

Clarivate reports that ESCI has over 7800 journals with 3 million records. A little over a third of those records are open access records.

The inclusion criteria for all four indices include 24 quality measures and four “impact” measures. Those journals that meet all 28 criteria are included in SCIE, SSCI, and AHCI. Those that only meet the 24 quality measures were relegated to the ESCI….

The second big announcement today is that with the 2023 release, Clarivate will “display” Impact Factors with only one decimal place instead of three! …”

 

This change announced today indicates that the four impact measures are no longer required in order to get an Impact Factor….”

ATG Interviews Alicia Wise, Executive Director of CLOCKSS – Charleston Hub

“ATG:  When you accepted the position, you remarked that CLOCKSS was “a profoundly important service.”  For those unfamiliar with CLOCKSS and its mission, can you tell us why it’s so important?  What essential services does CLOCKSS offer to those in the world of scholarly communications?  Is there anything unique about those services?

AW:  The mission of the CLOCKSS archive is to ensure the scholarly record remains available for humanity.  Scholars have worked so hard to advance knowledge, and their hard work is important to us all and especially to those scholars who will build on this foundation in the future.  Digital preservation is too big a job for any single organization, and even were it possible, it’s too important a job to entrust to any single organization, and so the community approach of CLOCKSS along with, and more broadly, LOCKSS is inspiring.

At CLOCKSS we focus on electronic publications.  Initially this meant books and journals, but now it means books, journals, and much more.  We are preserving all the rich resources that underpin articles and books (think data, protocols, software, visualizations), and entirely new forms of scholarship too (think scholar-led, interactive humanities resources published by academics or libraries).

CLOCKSS is a dark archive which means the content entrusted to us is made accessible only after the original or successor creators and publishers are no longer able to look after it.  When CLOCKSS provides access to the content, it becomes open access to everyone in perpetuity. …”